Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Nov 29;357(1427):1585–1594. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1067

Spectacular phenomena and limits to rationality in genetic and cultural evolution.

Magnus Enquist 1, Anthony Arak 1, Stefano Ghirlanda 1, Carl-Adam Wachtmeister 1
PMCID: PMC1693062  PMID: 12495515

Abstract

In studies of both animal and human behaviour, game theory is used as a tool for understanding strategies that appear in interactions between individuals. Game theory focuses on adaptive behaviour, which can be attained only at evolutionary equilibrium. We suggest that behaviour appearing during interactions is often outside the scope of such analysis. In many types of interaction, conflicts of interest exist between players, fuelling the evolution of manipulative strategies. Such strategies evolve out of equilibrium, commonly appearing as spectacular morphology or behaviour with obscure meaning, to which other players may react in non-adaptive, irrational ways. We present a simple model to show some limitations of the game-theory approach, and outline the conditions in which evolutionary equilibria cannot be maintained. Evidence from studies of biological interactions seems to support the view that behaviour is often not at equilibrium. This also appears to be the case for many human cultural traits, which have spread rapidly despite the fact that they have a negative influence on reproduction.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (196.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arak A., Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 29;349(1330):337–344. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1995.0122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Basolo A. L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 1990 Nov 9;250(4982):808–810. doi: 10.1126/science.250.4982.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dawkins R., Krebs J. R. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):489–511. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dieckmann U., Law R. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):579–612. doi: 10.1007/BF02409751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Foitzik S., DeHeer C. J., Hunjan D. N., Herbers J. M. Coevolution in host-parasite systems: behavioural strategies of slave-making ants and their hosts. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jun 7;268(1472):1139–1146. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Funk DH, Tallamy DW. Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long-tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda. Anim Behav. 2000 Feb;59(2):411–421. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Godfray H. C., Johnstone R. A. Begging and bleating: the evolution of parent-offspring signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Nov 29;355(1403):1581–1591. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gould S. J., Lewontin R. C. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):581–598. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. HANSON H. M. Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1959 Nov;58:321–334. doi: 10.1037/h0042606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnstone R. A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1995 Feb;70(1):1–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01439.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Karlin S. General two-locus selection models: some objectives, results and interpretations. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Jun;7(3):364–398. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(75)90025-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lloyd J. E. Male photuris fireflies mimic sexual signals of their females' prey. Science. 1980 Nov 7;210(4470):669–671. doi: 10.1126/science.210.4470.669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pietsch T. W., Grobecker D. B. The compleat angler: aggressive mimicry in an antennariid anglerfish. Science. 1978 Jul 28;201(4353):369–370. doi: 10.1126/science.201.4353.369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rice W. R. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):232–234. doi: 10.1038/381232a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Russell P. A. Relationships between exploratory behaviour and fear: a review. Br J Psychol. 1973 Aug;64(3):417–433. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01369.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. SIMON H. A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sato T. A brood parasitic catfish of mouthbrooding cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika. Nature. 1986 Sep 4;323(6083):58–59. doi: 10.1038/323058a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES